Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer the minister to his statement to the House yesterday on the pay scandal when he said the only representation to him or his office from an SAS soldier or their family was a phone call from one woman who would not give her name, phone number or details of her situation. I refer the minister to his statement today, now admitting to a number of other representations from members of the Australian Defence Force to him, to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and to their offices. Given the critical nature and timing of these representations, how could the minister fail to recall them yesterday, the third day of questioning on this issue? Hasn’t the minister demonstrated either a gross dereliction of duty or unforgivable incompetence? Why won’t the minister do the right thing and resign?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. The simple answer is: because I was only aware of one of the calls. The buck stops with me on this issue. But, in the first instance, calls on SAS pay problems go to my colleague the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I had feedback about one phone call. From there, there is a set process. They are referred to the department for investigation and action. The important thing here, of course, is that these phone calls came in February. When learning of this problem last year, in October, I put an immediate stop on the recovery payments.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson was outside the doors this morning claiming that I did not put an immediate stop on the recovery action.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson is warned.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now table the internal defence paper trail, which acknowledges my direction and shows the stop on the recovery being put into effect. The member for Paterson interjected and said, ‘That’s not true.’ He claims I did not stop it for 120 days because he has a pay slip showing a zero payment. I asked the opposition yesterday to share that pay slip with me so that I could get to the bottom of the issue. It left me perplexed because, having been assured that my stop had been put into effect almost immediately, I could not understand why someone would continue to have overpayments deducted. Very sadly, the opposition chose yesterday not to share that pay slip with me, despite my request. I suggested that all names and any identifiers could be blanked out. I was looking for some cooperation to ensure that Defence had promptly acted on my instruction to immediately stop the deductions. Fortunately, I now have a copy of the same pay slip, I believe.

That pay slip for that fortnight shows that the member concerned had a net pay on that day of $2,749.06, of which $1,956 went into his Westpac account and $778 went into the Defence Force Credit Union. I do not expect people in the House to be able to read this, but at the bottom of the pay slip it says, ‘Entitlement: 00.’ I am happy to compare notes with the opposition to make sure it is the same document, but I am very, very confident it is. The ‘00’ down the bottom is the result of the last box on the pay slip. The box reflects quite complex calculations and adjustments which go to the debts that appear against the soldier’s name for various reasons, including, I think, the implementation of the tribunal’s decision. But no money has been deducted for that debt—which, by the way, was extinguished as of 18 February. This soldier no longer has any debt relating to the implementation of the Remuneration Tribunal’s decision. He could have other debts for other reasons, as members of the ADF often do—for overpayments et cetera—but, as of the Chief of Army’s directive of 18 February, this soldier no longer has any debt on that basis.

The whole politicisation of this SAS matter this week has been based on this pay slip, which the opposition have claimed resulted in the soldier being paid zero. Either the opposition are very dumb and cannot read the pay slip properly or they misrepresented the facts. I will leave it to members of the Australian community and, in particular, the men and women of the Australian Defence Force—and, even more importantly, the men and women of the SAS Regiment—to decide which it is. When Senator Johnston rightly—well, not rightly, because I think he should have brought it to me—brought up this matter for the first time in October estimates last year, he finished by saying:

I am very much obliged to the efforts you—

that is, Chief of Army—

have taken. I thank you for that. I will write to you if there are any further issues so that we might resolve them privately from here on in. Thank you very much.

Senator Johnston decided that this SAS issue was too sensitive to continue to pursue in the public domain. Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition decided something different.